$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 30^th August, 2024 + CRL.L.P. 622/2016 RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Sharma and Mr. Vipul Kumar, Advocates.

versus SUSHIL KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rakesh Lakra and Ms. Kanika Sharma, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1. By this petition, Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 09.06.2016 passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI- 03, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby the appeal being CA No.43/2015 filed by the Respondent under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.10.2015 and order on sentence dated 05.11.2015 passed by learned MM-01 (NI Act), South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in CC No.3759/2013 titled ‘Raj Kumar v. Sushil Kumar’ was allowed. Petitioner was the complainant before the Trial Court and Respondent was the accused and parties are hereinafter referred to by their litigating status before this Court.

2. Case set up by the Petitioner in the present petition is that Petitioner owing to friendly relationship with the Respondent and upon request of the latter, extended financial help in the sum of Rs.14 lacs on a number of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.L.P. 622/2016 Page 1 of 40 occasions between 29.09.2011 and 11.01.2012. Petitioner was assured that the said amount will be repaid by March, 2012. In discharge of his liability, Respondent issued a cheque bearing No.546144 for a sum of Rs.8 lacs, dated 05.03.2012 drawn on Canara Bank, Najafgarh, New Delhi, which on presentation was dishonoured and the reason in the dishonour memo was ‘exceeds arrangement’.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that when the Respondent was informed of the dishonour of the cheque, he apologized to the Petitioner and issued a fresh cheque bearing No.550403 dated 03.04.2012 for a sum of Rs.8 lacs drawn on Canara Bank, Najafgarh, New Delhi, but the said cheque was also dishonoured on presentation for the same reason ‘exceeds arrangement’. Constrained by this, Petitioner sent a legal notice to the Respondent on 17.04.2012 but no payment was made within the prescribed period and Petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Sections 138-142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’).

4. Pre-summoning evidence was led by the Petitioner by examining himself as CW-1 and tendering his affidavit Ex.C1, in which he reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. Following documents were exhibited by the Petitioner:-

(i) Return Memo dated 19.03.2012 as Ex.CW1/1;

(ii) Cheque bearing No. 550403 as Ex.CW1/2;

(iii) Return Memo dated 10.04.2012 as Ex.CW1/3;

(iv) Copy of legal notice as Ex.CW1/4;

(v) Copies of Postal receipts as Ex.CW1/5 and CW1/6; and (vi) Computer generated tracking report as Ex.CW1/7.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.L.P. 622/2016 Page 2 of 40

5. Summons were issued to the Respondent. Notice was framed by the learned MM on 14.09.2012 under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Respondent pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial. Petitioner led evidence and examined two witnesses. Petitioner examined himself as CW-1 and adopted the contents of his affidavit Ex.C1 already tendered at the stage of pre-summoning evidence. He relied on the aforementioned documents and additionally on the following documents:

(i) ITR Acknowledgement as Ex.CW1/8 (colly); and (ii) Copy of certificate issued by RMP Global Events as Ex.CW1/9 (OSR).

6. Petitioner examined Sh. Ashok Sehrawat, Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Basai Road, Gurgaon, the then Branch Manager of the Bank at Dichaon Kalan Branch as CW-2. The witness proved the endorsement on the back of the cheque as Ex.CW2/A and deposed with respect to letter dated 11.06.2012 Ex.CW2/B. Both witnesses were cross-

examined by the Respondent and Petitioner’s evidence was closed.

7. Respondent denied the allegations levelled against him when the incriminating circumstances were put to him during his Sta